Please errate Perfectionnist !

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

You'd have to forgive me, but I've read through this thread, and I
can't see why Perfectionist needs errataring.

Name: Perfectionist
[Gehenna:C]
Cardtype: Master
Master: archetype.
Put this card on a vampire you control. Once per turn, when this
vampire sucessfully performs an action and no reaction cards are
played, he or she gains 1 blood after the action is resolved. A vampire
can have only one archetype.
Artist: Ken Meyer, Jr.

Perfectionist can only be claimed once per turn. So a multiple action
deck may get the first freak drive paid for, but after that, no help.
(I've yet to see it played in this type of deck, although I'm sure many
have)

It's common, not unique and can be used in any deck (that has the
space). As has been mentioned, so is Blood Doll. However, unless Blood
Doll is Suddened (which you could do with Perfectionist) then at least
you can stop the blood being gained from Perfectionist. Taking a blood
of a vampire with Blood Doll doesn't cost an MPA, and isn't even a
trifle MPA.

The only deck I have not seen perfectionist foiled in so far is one
where is is given to Hesha as an additional bloating tool, because not
many people attempt to block the +2 stealth hunt action (and probably
more fool them for not doing so). The vast majority of other actions
people at least want to attempt to block if they can, and so a reaction
card will maybe 50% (a number plucked out the air!) of the time be
played. If you even work on 25%, then 1 turn in 4, your vampire will
not be perfect, and then it won't gain the blood.

I would agree that Perfectionist would need errata if it were a trifle,
as you could put that and the a blood doll down straight after and
immediately set the bloat ability up. I don't think it needs errata
just because some of the others are a bit weaker compared to it. It is
common, and it doesn't (at least afaics) make any one deck type
particularly powerful, as most decks need to focus their masters a
little better and not just have too many allrounder master cards in.
Yes, it might help the multi actions once per turn, but with the
opportunity for anyone to through a wake just to cycle to another card
(which I do see regularly enough, even in larger tourneys) then if you
see a perfect vamp on the table, you can alwasy choose to do it when
that vamp acts, rather than wait for the last action your predator
does. I think the best decks are probably the toolboxy ones, because
when it comes down to it, many are far too focused usually, and need
all their planned cards, and the strategy should outweigh the need for
this card.

Useful, definitely.
Ability to go in any deck, absolutely.
Overpowered, I don't think so.
Will see play, yes.
Will make that deck the table winner just because it is their, no.
Screws Table dynamics, I don't think so.
Needs errataring - not in my opinion.

p.s. The Hesha deck described above is the only deck that I have yet
seen this in.

Andy
VEKN Setite Ruler of Cambridge

The opinions above are purely my own, based on personal experience and
the fact that I don't like errata (especially just to make some other
cards less weak).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Daneel wrote:
>But the point is, seeing how many times it got foiled and how many
times it was >useful, I figured that the hindrance is not that
significant.

I think LSJ's point is, mostly, that much like being used for bouncing
or intercepting or reacting, if Wake is useful at the time to simply
foil a Perfectionist, it'll get used for that.

But to bring us back to the main point, which seems to be "is
Perfectionist too powerful?", do you really think it is?

I mean, like, yeah, I totally see the argument that Perfectionist makes
most of the other Archetypes kind of weak, if not outright wallpaper.
But ok. I don't think this is 'cause *Perfectionist* is too powerful.
The other Archetypes are weak (although arguably, Sociopath and
Capitalist are both pretty solid in and of themselves), which is sad,
but doesn't mean that Perfectionist needs to take a hit.

In and of itself, Perfectionist seems like a good, if not a complete no
brainer, of a card. It takes a master slot and an MPA. It generates
blood, say, half the time (sometimes it'll work more. Sometimes it'll
work less). But unlike a Hunting Ground, it is limited to a single
vampire, makes them a target, doesn't work if they don't take actions,
and doesn't work if someone plays a reaction (and people play reactions
a lot--intercept, Wake, Forced, whatever). Again, yeah, if you have,
like, 6 vampires in play and one with Perfectionist goes hunting early,
it is likely to just be ignored. But if you have a superstar deck,
where Arika has Perfectionist, it is likely that she'll never gain any
blood at all off it.

Does Perfectionist, divorced from the context of the other, weaker
Archetypes, really need to be weakened?

-Peter

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 12:44:38 +0100, James Coupe <james@zephyr.org.uk>
scrawled:

>In message <424ed7f3$0$22839$79c14f64@nan-newsreader-05.noos.net>, reyda
><true_reyda@hotmail.com> writes:
>>James Coupe a écrit :
>
>>the problem of bravo is : you have not to be blocked in your enter
>>combat attempt. Sociopath is good since no matter who gets on the way,
>>you gain one blood if you bruise him.
>
>I think what Bravo is intended for is decks which rush with inherent
>stealth that want to play other Masters too. That brings it down to
>four major options:

[snip]

>Where I think it could be fun is in a deck like a Contract deck. You
>have some extra versatile stealth (Swallowed by the Night) available if
>you need it too, and you can go for Clandestine Contract and the like.
>Even if you go for Contract, it's a Trifle, so less of an issue.

erm...neither Contract nor Bravo are trifles, as far as i can tell....


salem
http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On 4 Apr 2005 01:01:15 -0700, Slytherin <andyb@operamail.com> wrote:

> You'd have to forgive me, but I've read through this thread, and I
> can't see why Perfectionist needs errataring.

Because it wallpapers almost every other Archetype? Not that it would
really matter, but that's the point people were trying to make.

> Name: Perfectionist
> [Gehenna:C]
> Cardtype: Master
> Master: archetype.
> Put this card on a vampire you control. Once per turn, when this
> vampire sucessfully performs an action and no reaction cards are
> played, he or she gains 1 blood after the action is resolved. A vampire
> can have only one archetype.
> Artist: Ken Meyer, Jr.
>
> Perfectionist can only be claimed once per turn.

Indeed, quite like the other Archetypes.

Bravo, Capitalist, Creep Show, Guru, Perfectionist, Rebel, Sociopath,
Traditionalist: Once per turn. Of course, archetypes not linked to
acting may theoretically be used in other Methuselahs' turns, but in
general are that harder to pull off to begin with.

Conniver, Curmudgeon: You tap the card.

Loner: During this do that phrasing limits to one use per (your) turn.

> So a multiple action
> deck may get the first freak drive paid for, but after that, no help.
> (I've yet to see it played in this type of deck, although I'm sure many
> have)

A multiple action minion will almost certainly gain blood from
Perfectionist - and he won't really gain more blood from other
Archetypes. He may actually gain less, as the other active archetypes
usually require a given action to succeed - like, bleeding your prey
for 1+. You can only bleed once a turn, so if you take multiple actions,
you still have just a single chance to get the blood - unlike with
Perfectionist.

> It's common,

That makes it even better, as far as availability is concerned.

> not unique

Even more better.

> and can be used in any deck (that has the space).

Wow, this seems like a great card... 😉

> As has been mentioned, so is Blood Doll. However, unless Blood
> Doll is Suddened (which you could do with Perfectionist) then at least
> you can stop the blood being gained from Perfectionist. Taking a blood
> of a vampire with Blood Doll doesn't cost an MPA, and isn't even a
> trifle MPA.

Apples and Oranges, we are comparing, sort of.

Depending on what actions you take (and how your pool/blood management
works) I see the following differences (I'm assuming the cards are used
in decks they really belong to):

Blood Doll allows you to move 1 blood. Very useful for prudently recaliming
the blood invested in the vampire, resupplying some blood to a weakened
(or empty) vampire, or easily managing the size of your pool for effects
that require you to have a cartain amount of pool.

Perfectionist is nothing like that. It allows your vampire to have a steady
flow of blood from the blood bank. Blood Doll only mover blood, but
Perfectionist can gain you blood. There is even a synergy between Blood
Doll and Perfectionist, on a certain level, by one generating blood and
the other allowing you to convert blood to pool.

The effect of Blood Doll is more remarkable than the effect of
Perfectionist,
by the way. But compared to Perfectionist, the other Archetypes look even
less remarkable for the average deck.

> The only deck I have not seen perfectionist foiled in so far is one
> where is is given to Hesha as an additional bloating tool, because not
> many people attempt to block the +2 stealth hunt action (and probably
> more fool them for not doing so). The vast majority of other actions
> people at least want to attempt to block if they can, and so a reaction
> card will maybe 50% (a number plucked out the air!) of the time be
> played. If you even work on 25%, then 1 turn in 4, your vampire will
> not be perfect, and then it won't gain the blood.

Unless he or she is taking another action that turn, and gains the blood
from that action.

> I would agree that Perfectionist would need errata if it were a trifle,
> as you could put that and the a blood doll down straight after and
> immediately set the bloat ability up. I don't think it needs errata
> just because some of the others are a bit weaker compared to it. It is
> common, and it doesn't (at least afaics) make any one deck type
> particularly powerful, as most decks need to focus their masters a
> little better and not just have too many allrounder master cards in.

That is all right. People say Perfectionist is overpowered because they
compare it to the other archetypes. It isn't remotely overpowered in
itself.

> Yes, it might help the multi actions once per turn, but with the
> opportunity for anyone to through a wake just to cycle to another card
> (which I do see regularly enough, even in larger tourneys) then if you
> see a perfect vamp on the table, you can alwasy choose to do it when
> that vamp acts, rather than wait for the last action your predator
> does. I think the best decks are probably the toolboxy ones, because
> when it comes down to it, many are far too focused usually, and need
> all their planned cards, and the strategy should outweigh the need for
> this card.

I don't agree with the cycling a Wake part. There is a tendency to need
to cycle spare Wakes late midgame and especially endgame, but the blood
gained from an early Perfectionist will more than pay for that
inconvenience. Not to mention that your allies probably won't throw
Wakes at your actions, your predator will probably have a better use for
it, given how your grandpredator hasn't acted yet, so it's probably your
prey who will throw in the Wake - who will, most likely, try to use the
Wake to defend his pool or minions. Theoretically anything you do will
in the long run be harmful to your prey, but he will try to play a
defence portfolio that minimizes the harm you can do to him. Meaning, in
most cases you do end up with Perfectionist gaining you the blood.

> Useful, definitely.
> Ability to go in any deck, absolutely.
> Overpowered, I don't think so.
> Will see play, yes.
> Will make that deck the table winner just because it is their, no.
> Screws Table dynamics, I don't think so.
> Needs errataring - not in my opinion.

Agreed.

> p.s. The Hesha deck described above is the only deck that I have yet
> seen this in.
>
> Andy
> VEKN Setite Ruler of Cambridge
>
> The opinions above are purely my own, based on personal experience and
> the fact that I don't like errata (especially just to make some other
> cards less weak).

Yes, agreed. This debate is more hypothetical. I'm not sure anyone would
really like to see errata for such a low-impact card as Perfectionist
when there are other, more powerful cards out there that wallpaper a
bunch of other cards or break the game. The point is the way I see it
more about why it is so much better in practice than the other Archetypes,
and whether this is poor for the diversity of the game.

--
Bye,

Daneel

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

In message <mlq051tmi1agsogpbjudv0s96gmrtiobpa@4ax.com>, salem
<salem_christ.geo@hotmail.com> writes:
>>Where I think it could be fun is in a deck like a Contract deck. You
>>have some extra versatile stealth (Swallowed by the Night) available if
>>you need it too, and you can go for Clandestine Contract and the like.
>>Even if you go for Contract, it's a Trifle, so less of an issue.
>
>erm...neither Contract nor Bravo are trifles, as far as i can tell....

Hmm. How odd. I'd swear when I was looking at the text for Bravo that
it said it was a Trifle.

Gah.

--
James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?"
13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 03:45:09 GMT, LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
wrote:

> Daneel wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 13:12:15 GMT, LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
>>>> People being able to throw away a defensive resource isn't really
>>>> that often. A good deal of the time that Wake is needed for the
>>>> purpose it was included in the deck for.
>>>
>>> Wake is generally included for the purpose of reacting to someone's
>>> actions when you don't want them to get what they expect from that
>>> action (by blocking, deflecting, or simply thwarting their
>>> Perfectionist).
>>
>> Please show me a single Wake ever that has been included in a deck
>> ever to thwart Perfectionist. Like, ever. 😉
>
> Please show me where that was suggested.

Well, nowhere, really. But it sounded cool, didn't it?

But if you have, say, 6 Wakes and 6 Telepathic Misdirections in a deck
as casual bleed defence, you won't, under normal circumstances, throw
in a Wake just to prevent someone from gaining 1 blood. You'll most
likely wait for one of the Misdirections and use them in a pair to
bounce a bleed.

> Wake is a general purpose card. One of those purposes is to block.
> Another is to deflect. Reduce. Delay. Thwart perfectionist.

Ah, so we do see that one of the purposes of including Wake is to
thwart Perfectionist. This may be just semantics, but I don't see
that as a purpose. I see blocking, deflecting, reducing, delaying,
countervoting and making obey as the main purposes of the card. In
particular decks you may have other purposes - but purposes are
always related to a general attack form and/or a specific card
you use in your deck. It is, IMHO, never related to a specific card
in another player's deck unless 1) that card can really ruin your
day (PTO), or 2) you know which deck you'll be facing and prepare
for it.

> It's just up to the player to figure out what the best use of
> it is at the given moment. Often enough, there are enough of
> them such that the best use of one of them is "Wake and watch"
> (that is, do nothing).

My experience suggests otherwise. Let's assume we are playing in a
5-player game. My two allies probably won't cycle their Wakes on
my actions, even if they do have Wakes to cycle, as my strength is
in their temporary interests. My predator has a predator who hasn't
acted yet. Meaning, he is unlikely to have Wakes to cycle (he
doesn't redraw, and may need them when his predator is acting). My
prey is probably more concerned about his pool than my vampire's
blood totals.

I've played both with and against Perfectionist a number of times,
and I see the cycling of the occasional reaction card as something
quite uncommon. It does reduce Perfectionist's usefulness from being
equal to "This vampire gains a blood each turn", but then the other
Archetypes usually have restrictions that are far more significant
hindrances than Perfectionist's weakness.

> Try reading what it written instead of inventing straw men to
> knock down.

Was that a ruling or a clarification? 😉

> Build the deck. Then, in play, when faced with actual decks,
> use what is in your deck to your advantage.

I guess I could only suggest the same thing to you. I'm not sure
Perfectionist looks strong on paper. I did not really think it was
significantly stronger than the other archetypes until I tried
playing with and against it on numerous occasions. Also, I haven't
built a deck in ages that included Wakes "just because". Every card
should have an intended purpose, IMHO, to maximize the synergies.
Wakes are usually no good unless you have Intercept, Delaying
Tactics, Deflections or Obedience to be played along it. If Wakes
clog your hand, your reactive potential can actually be impaired by
the lack of follow-up cards. Not to mention your active potential,
if your hand is clogged on your turn. Of course, I'm just a n00bie
of sorts... 😉

--
Bye,

Daneel

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Daneel wrote:
>No, I don't think so. If we want to diversify, I'd rather go for
raising
> the other Archetypes through card synergies (we've seen some of
these,
> like Dylan Advanced for Capitalist, Black Annis for Bravo, etc, but
you
> can go further with stuff like having a guy who untaps during your
> discard if he was the sole non-mandatory actor you control during
your
> turn, etc.) or explicit references giving specific Archetype-related

> bonuses (like, an enter combat card that gives a bonus to a Bravo
doing
> it, an untap-after-action effect for a Loner, etc.).

Sure. It also seems likely that, if the designers are interested in the
idea overall, more Archetypes will be printed that are more up to par
with Perfectionist, and the other ones will simply stay as marginal to
weak.

-Peter

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

In message <1112601597.962346.122150@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
Slytherin <andyb@operamail.com> writes:
>You'd have to forgive me, but I've read through this thread, and I
>can't see why Perfectionist needs errataring.

You're missing the point.

It's not that Perfectionist is broken. It's that (for some people) it
significantly overshadows any of the other archetypes, meaning they
don't get played much. Hence "fixing" Perfectionist would make the
others more playable, in some eyes.


To my mind, if the others aren't worth playing at the moment, it would
just make all archetypes get played less.

--
James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?"
13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Daneel wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 03:45:09 GMT, LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
>> Wake is a general purpose card. One of those purposes is to block.
>> Another is to deflect. Reduce. Delay. Thwart perfectionist.
>
> Ah, so we do see that one of the purposes of including Wake is to
> thwart Perfectionist. This may be just semantics, but I don't see

No.

No more than one of the purposes of building a deck around Rake
is to get +1 strength against Ventrue.

Unlike Rake, however, Wake is a true general purpose card.
It is often included for that purpose: general purpose. Utility.
Flexibility.

>> It's just up to the player to figure out what the best use of
>> it is at the given moment. Often enough, there are enough of
>> them such that the best use of one of them is "Wake and watch"
>> (that is, do nothing).
>
> My experience suggests otherwise. Let's assume we are playing in a

My experience shows otherwise.

> 5-player game. My two allies probably won't cycle their Wakes on
> my actions, even if they do have Wakes to cycle, as my strength is

I didn't say allies.

> in their temporary interests. My predator has a predator who hasn't
> acted yet. Meaning, he is unlikely to have Wakes to cycle (he
> doesn't redraw, and may need them when his predator is acting). My
> prey is probably more concerned about his pool than my vampire's
> blood totals.

"Probably", perhaps.
But, as I said, the option is there. If Perfectionists blood gain is
never worth thwarting, then perhaps rumors of it's overpoweredness
are exaggerated.

> playing with and against it on numerous occasions. Also, I haven't
> built a deck in ages that included Wakes "just because". Every card

Sigh.

Not "just because". But "because it is useful".

See also Sudden. Is it included "just because" or "in case someone
plays a Minion Tap"? No. It is included to offer options.

Geez.

> should have an intended purpose, IMHO, to maximize the synergies.
> Wakes are usually no good unless you have Intercept, Delaying
> Tactics, Deflections or Obedience to be played along it. If Wakes
> clog your hand, your reactive potential can actually be impaired by
> the lack of follow-up cards. Not to mention your active potential,
> if your hand is clogged on your turn. Of course, I'm just a n00bie
> of sorts... 😉
>


--
LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 11:03:10 GMT, LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
wrote:

>> should have an intended purpose, IMHO, to maximize the synergies.
>> Wakes are usually no good unless you have Intercept, Delaying
>> Tactics, Deflections or Obedience to be played along it.

Don't know. I'll give you an example.

Would you put Wakes in a, say, Daughters of Cacophony Choir deck
that's already full of Majesties?

I've made that mistake - they are bad at blocking anyway, why include
wakes? - more than once. Until I realized that no matter how bad I am
at blocking, I've been ousted many times one or two turns before I had
the right setup in hand to place that 8-pool-loss Choir on my prey.

So I included 4 Wakes. Angela and Gael *can* block bleeds, after all.

Now I make VPs regularly with the deck. In every single game. Last
time, I've been able to block Alexandra's bleed for 3 that would oust
me. Next turn, Tribute to the Master, going to 8 pool. 8-pool Choir on
my prey, who is ousted. Total 14 pool. Alexandra's bleeds won't be a
big of a problem for the next turn.

No matter what deck you and your predator are playing, in almost every
game a Wake could have saved your ass. You can win without them. But
sometimes not dying at the wrong moment is critical.


If Wakes
>> clog your hand, your reactive potential can actually be impaired by
>> the lack of follow-up cards. Not to mention your active potential,
>> if your hand is clogged on your turn

Wakes only clog your hand if you have too much of them (duh). That's
why I don't use more than 6 to 8 Wakes (or Forced Awakenings) in any
deck, even wall ones. I've been playing with a Giovanni deck that has
three different block-fails cards specially to twart wall decks;
that's the only situation where I could imagine myself getting a hand
full of Wakes.

best,

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
Giovanni Newsletter Editor
-----------------------------------------------------
V for Vendetta on the big screen!
http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Fabio "Sooner" Macedo" <fabio_sooner@NOSPAMyahoo.com.br> wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 11:03:10 GMT, LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> should have an intended purpose, IMHO, to maximize the synergies.
> >> Wakes are usually no good unless you have Intercept, Delaying
> >> Tactics, Deflections or Obedience to be played along it.
>
> Don't know. I'll give you an example.

That is Daneel you're quoting, not me.

--
LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (Remove spam trap to reply).
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 11:03:10 GMT, LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
wrote:

> Daneel wrote:
>> On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 03:45:09 GMT, LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
>>> Wake is a general purpose card. One of those purposes is to block.
>>> Another is to deflect. Reduce. Delay. Thwart perfectionist.
>>
>> Ah, so we do see that one of the purposes of including Wake is to
>> thwart Perfectionist. This may be just semantics, but I don't see
>
> No.
>
> No more than one of the purposes of building a deck around Rake
> is to get +1 strength against Ventrue.
>
> Unlike Rake, however, Wake is a true general purpose card.
> It is often included for that purpose: general purpose. Utility.
> Flexibility.

I see. I'd say its semantics then. I used "purpose" as "intended
role" and not "possible function". The purpose of including a
Telepathic Misdirection in a deck is usually to allow for bounce,
even if the card is multi-purpose (and can be used for the purpose
of gaining +1 Intercept if needed).

>>> It's just up to the player to figure out what the best use of
>>> it is at the given moment. Often enough, there are enough of
>>> them such that the best use of one of them is "Wake and watch"
>>> (that is, do nothing).
>>
>> My experience suggests otherwise. Let's assume we are playing in a
>
> My experience shows otherwise.

I guess our experiences differ, then.

>> 5-player game. My two allies probably won't cycle their Wakes on
>> my actions, even if they do have Wakes to cycle, as my strength is
>
> I didn't say allies.

So? I did. For the purpose of a practical example I depicted a general
5-player table. You have four adversaries, two of whom are, thanks to
the dynamics of the game, more interested in you getting weaker (and
there are two other adversaries, who are conversely less interested
in you getting weaker, even to the point of generally foregoing an
opportunity to deny you a blood you'd gain from Perfectionist, for
example). I was referring to them as "allies", a commonly used but
admittedly somewhat misleading word.

>> in their temporary interests. My predator has a predator who hasn't
>> acted yet. Meaning, he is unlikely to have Wakes to cycle (he
>> doesn't redraw, and may need them when his predator is acting). My
>> prey is probably more concerned about his pool than my vampire's
>> blood totals.
>
> "Probably", perhaps.
> But, as I said, the option is there.

Indeed. I wasn't debating the theory, mind you.

> If Perfectionists blood gain is never worth thwarting, then
> perhaps rumors of it's overpoweredness are exaggerated.

I would call this an oversimplification. Assuming you observe the
opportunity cost of playing a Wake just so that someone (likely
your predator or prey) is denied one blood, of course. If you get
rid of your Wake to deny that blood, you may be putting yourself
in a worse position by not allowing you to use that Wake for
something more crucial, like waking to bounce a bleed.

I'm not saying blood gain is insignificant and so people will never
mind throwing a reaction card. I'm saying that in practice
thwarting the blood gain is often a less effective way to use
your Wake.

>> playing with and against it on numerous occasions. Also, I haven't
>> built a deck in ages that included Wakes "just because". Every card
>
> Sigh.
>
> Not "just because". But "because it is useful".
>
> See also Sudden. Is it included "just because" or "in case someone
> plays a Minion Tap"? No. It is included to offer options.
>
> Geez.

Sudden Reversal I only include in decks that explicitly want to prevent
(a) specific type(s) of master card(s) from being played. I've included
it mostly against Minion Taps or other pool gain/retrieval cards. That,
of course, does not limit the card from being generally useful, and I
sometimes do end up using it to cancel some other sort of master card
(as the table necessitates). But most of the time the card does what
it should, as part of the strategy of playing the given deck.

Example: I often include Vox Domini in Non-Camarilla decks to thwart a
PTO. I recall at least once being hit by a Parity Shift while holding
Vox and not playing it because my predator had an IC member (who, after
seeing how the Parity got through, called the PTO which I Voxed). Had
I played Vox on the Parity Shift, I would have been screwed by losing
my main vampire. This way I could reclaim 3 blood off Blood Dolls, and
keep playing.

--
Bye,

Daneel

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Daneel" <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 11:03:10 GMT, LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
> wrote:
> > Daneel wrote:
> >> On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 03:45:09 GMT, LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
> >>> Wake is a general purpose card. One of those purposes is to block.
> >>> Another is to deflect. Reduce. Delay. Thwart perfectionist.
> >>
> >> Ah, so we do see that one of the purposes of including Wake is to
> >> thwart Perfectionist. This may be just semantics, but I don't see
> >
> > No.
> >
> > No more than one of the purposes of building a deck around Rake
> > is to get +1 strength against Ventrue.
> >
> > Unlike Rake, however, Wake is a true general purpose card.
> > It is often included for that purpose: general purpose. Utility.
> > Flexibility.
>
> I see. I'd say its semantics then. I used "purpose" as "intended
> role" and not "possible function". The purpose of including a
> Telepathic Misdirection in a deck is usually to allow for bounce,
> even if the card is multi-purpose (and can be used for the purpose
> of gaining +1 Intercept if needed).

Yes. That's why I said "it is a general purpose card".
Purpose in that context means utility. It does not address intention,
which you replaced my usage with in your follow-up.

> >>> It's just up to the player to figure out what the best use of
> >>> it is at the given moment. Often enough, there are enough of
> >>> them such that the best use of one of them is "Wake and watch"
> >>> (that is, do nothing).
> >>
> >> My experience suggests otherwise. Let's assume we are playing in a
> >
> > My experience shows otherwise.
>
> I guess our experiences differ, then.

Yes.
And note that not seeing something doesn't mean that that something
doesn't exist.

> > See also Sudden. Is it included "just because" or "in case someone
> > plays a Minion Tap"? No. It is included to offer options.
> >
> > Geez.
>
> Sudden Reversal I only include in decks that explicitly want to prevent
> (a) specific type(s) of master card(s) from being played. I've included
> it mostly against Minion Taps or other pool gain/retrieval cards. That,
> of course, does not limit the card from being generally useful, and I
> sometimes do end up using it to cancel some other sort of master card
> (as the table necessitates). But most of the time the card does what
> it should, as part of the strategy of playing the given deck.

Right. Exactly my point. A deck with Wakes that feels that the Perfectionist
blood gain is worth stopping can trivially stop it, even if stopping it
was not the intended use of Wake he had envisioned when he included the
Wake in his deck.

--
LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (Remove spam trap to reply).
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 10:08:44 -0300, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
<fabio_sooner@NOSPAMyahoo.com.br> wrote:

> Don't know. I'll give you an example.
>
> Would you put Wakes in a, say, Daughters of Cacophony Choir deck
> that's already full of Majesties?

Depends. I think the last Daughters deck I was running was somewhat
toolboxish, and had about 5 Wakes for various reasons.

But I can imagine a Daughters deck I wouldn't put any Wakes (or
pure reaction cards) in.

> No matter what deck you and your predator are playing, in almost every
> game a Wake could have saved your ass. You can win without them. But
> sometimes not dying at the wrong moment is critical.

I often completely neglect to include whole groups of cards in certain
decks, which decks, despite the apparent shortcoming, seem to work
just fine and score a fair share of VPs. A deck might not have any
Reaction cards, or Combat cards, or Actions, and still be fairly
competent on the long run. The only thing I never leave out is
Master cards.

--
Bye,

Daneel

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 10:04:03 -0400, LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
wrote:

>> I see. I'd say its semantics then. I used "purpose" as "intended
>> role" and not "possible function". The purpose of including a
>> Telepathic Misdirection in a deck is usually to allow for bounce,
>> even if the card is multi-purpose (and can be used for the purpose
>> of gaining +1 Intercept if needed).
>
> Yes. That's why I said "it is a general purpose card".
> Purpose in that context means utility. It does not address intention,
> which you replaced my usage with in your follow-up.

Well, sorry for the misunderstanding. I was stuck with the idea that
we were still talking about the purpose for including a card (and
not the purpose of the card itself)...

>> I guess our experiences differ, then.
>
> Yes.
> And note that not seeing something doesn't mean that that something
> doesn't exist.

Yes. I have seen Perfectionist get foiled by a thrown Wake. I did
that myself (with Wakes, or +1 Intercept cards even when I knew the
vampire could stealth past me). I had my Perfectionists foiled by
Wakes being thrown in (even cross-table).

But the point is, seeing how many times it got foiled and how many
times it was useful, I figured that the hindrance is not that
significant.

>> Sudden Reversal I only include in decks that explicitly want to prevent
>> (a) specific type(s) of master card(s) from being played. I've
>> included
>> it mostly against Minion Taps or other pool gain/retrieval cards.
>> That,
>> of course, does not limit the card from being generally useful, and I
>> sometimes do end up using it to cancel some other sort of master card
>> (as the table necessitates). But most of the time the card does what
>> it should, as part of the strategy of playing the given deck.
>
> Right. Exactly my point. A deck with Wakes that feels that the
> Perfectionist
> blood gain is worth stopping can trivially stop it, even if stopping it
> was not the intended use of Wake he had envisioned when he included the
> Wake in his deck.

Agreed, except for the "trivial cost" part - the opportunity cost can be
quite high IMHO.

--
Bye,

Daneel

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Daneel" <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote:
> Agreed, except for the "trivial cost" part - the opportunity cost can be
> quite high IMHO.


I do not say that it cannot be quite high.

I say that it can be trivial (like when you needed to cycle the Wake out
of your hand anyhow).

--
LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (Remove spam trap to reply).
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Peter D Bakija wrote:
> Daneel wrote:
>
> > I think that the game should have as few as possible wallpapers and
> > as many as possible archetypical (like stealth bleed, bruise 'n
bleed,
> > etc.) deck types.
>
> Oh, I agree. But I think it is clear that the initial foray into
Archetypes
> didn't work to well, and Perfectionist is likely the power level they
should
> be at. So the early prototypes are a failed experiement, so we leave
them
> behind and move on.

Bravo: Trifle
Capitalist: Remove Sabbat restriction
Conniver: Trifle
Creep Show: Remove Sabbat restriction
Curmudgeon: Remove tap restriction
Guru: Remove Sabbat restriction
Loner: Trifle
Perfectionist: "Gold Standard archetype"
Rebel: Add "older" as another criteria
Sociopath: Remove Sabbat restriction
Traditionalist: Remove "and the referendum fails" restriction.

Voila! Fixed Archetypes. 😉

Jeff

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 09:48:19 -0400, "LSJ"
<vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote:

>"Fabio "Sooner" Macedo" <fabio_sooner@NOSPAMyahoo.com.br> wrote:
>>
>> >> should have an intended purpose, IMHO, to maximize the synergies.
>> >> Wakes are usually no good unless you have Intercept, Delaying
>> >> Tactics, Deflections or Obedience to be played along it.
>>
>> Don't know. I'll give you an example.
>
>That is Daneel you're quoting, not me.

Oops. Sorry, didn't check.

best,

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
Giovanni Newsletter Editor
-----------------------------------------------------
V for Vendetta on the big screen!
http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 10:32:52 -0400, LSJ <vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
wrote:

> "Daneel" <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote:
>> Agreed, except for the "trivial cost" part - the opportunity cost can be
>> quite high IMHO.
>
> I do not say that it cannot be quite high.
>
> I say that it can be trivial (like when you needed to cycle the Wake out
> of your hand anyhow).

Yes, it can be.

--
Bye,

Daneel

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On 4 Apr 2005 07:38:03 -0700, <pdb6@lightlink.com> wrote:

> But to bring us back to the main point, which seems to be "is
> Perfectionist too powerful?", do you really think it is?

No. Perfectionist is at best an "average" card. Maybe a good
"average", but certainly not a "good". Okay, well, maybe a
poor "good". 😉

> I mean, like, yeah, I totally see the argument that Perfectionist makes
> most of the other Archetypes kind of weak, if not outright wallpaper.

Yeah, well, that was my point, basically. Perfectionist is THE archetype,
with the others being marginalized and are only useful in specific decks.
There are some decks one other Archetype is about as good as
Perfectionist,
but in the majority it's Perfectionist all the way (if you do plan to use
any of the Archetypes at all).

> But ok. I don't think this is 'cause *Perfectionist* is too powerful.
> The other Archetypes are weak (although arguably, Sociopath and
> Capitalist are both pretty solid in and of themselves), which is sad,
> but doesn't mean that Perfectionist needs to take a hit.

Agreed.

> In and of itself, Perfectionist seems like a good, if not a complete no
> brainer, of a card. It takes a master slot and an MPA. It generates
> blood, say, half the time (sometimes it'll work more. Sometimes it'll
> work less). But unlike a Hunting Ground, it is limited to a single
> vampire, makes them a target, doesn't work if they don't take actions,
> and doesn't work if someone plays a reaction (and people play reactions
> a lot--intercept, Wake, Forced, whatever). Again, yeah, if you have,
> like, 6 vampires in play and one with Perfectionist goes hunting early,
> it is likely to just be ignored. But if you have a superstar deck,
> where Arika has Perfectionist, it is likely that she'll never gain any
> blood at all off it.

Also, Archetypes are unstealable and unburnable through the means a
Hunring Ground can be stolen or burned. You can Conquest of Humanity
and still gain blood from your archetypes. Of course, the stuff you
wrote is still true.

> Does Perfectionist, divorced from the context of the other, weaker
> Archetypes, really need to be weakened?

No, I don't think so. If we want to diversify, I'd rather go for raising
the other Archetypes through card synergies (we've seen some of these,
like Dylan Advanced for Capitalist, Black Annis for Bravo, etc, but you
can go further with stuff like having a guy who untaps during your
discard if he was the sole non-mandatory actor you control during your
turn, etc.) or explicit references giving specific Archetype-related
bonuses (like, an enter combat card that gives a bonus to a Bravo doing
it, an untap-after-action effect for a Loner, etc.).

--
Bye,

Daneel

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On 4 Apr 2005 09:23:31 -0700, <pdb6@lightlink.com> wrote:

> Daneel wrote:
>> No, I don't think so. If we want to diversify, I'd rather go for
> raising
>> the other Archetypes through card synergies (we've seen some of
> these,
>> like Dylan Advanced for Capitalist, Black Annis for Bravo, etc, but
> you
>> can go further with stuff like having a guy who untaps during your
>> discard if he was the sole non-mandatory actor you control during
> your
>> turn, etc.) or explicit references giving specific Archetype-related
>
>> bonuses (like, an enter combat card that gives a bonus to a Bravo
> doing
>> it, an untap-after-action effect for a Loner, etc.).
>
> Sure. It also seems likely that, if the designers are interested in the
> idea overall, more Archetypes will be printed that are more up to par
> with Perfectionist, and the other ones will simply stay as marginal to
> weak.

True, that's another option. I'm all for diversity, myself, though -
having a card around that is quite good from certain perspectives but
weak from many others is an example of a card that adds to variety.
I'd rather see the old archetypes get some beefing up through non-
errata means, if possible, than have a set of new, more powerful
archetypes.

I think that the game should have as few as possible wallpapers and
as many as possible archetypical (like stealth bleed, bruise 'n bleed,
etc.) deck types.

--
Bye,

Daneel

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Daneel wrote:

> I think that the game should have as few as possible wallpapers and
> as many as possible archetypical (like stealth bleed, bruise 'n bleed,
> etc.) deck types.

Oh, I agree. But I think it is clear that the initial foray into Archetypes
didn't work to well, and Perfectionist is likely the power level they should
be at. So the early prototypes are a failed experiement, so we leave them
behind and move on.


Peter D Bakija
pdb6@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Peter D Bakija wrote:
|
| Oh, I agree. But I think it is clear that the initial foray into
Archetypes
| didn't work to well, and Perfectionist is likely the power level they
should
| be at. So the early prototypes are a failed experiement, so we leave them
| behind and move on.

OMG, who'd have thought -- actually trying something at a MILD level
first, to see if it's underpowered or just right, before adding stronger
stuff in later if it IS underpowered.

Hey, I got a great idea; instead of pouring a cupful of salt on my
dinner before tasting it, how about I make this thing called a "shaker",
where I try a little bit first and then add more later if I need?

- --
Derek

insert clever quotation here

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFCUbz7tQZlu3o7QpERAh1mAKCHr1IZGI9ucKade5U3RRkQ11YNEgCgh5NS
2mcj3kxh8rjRmPmAJHNt6Ig=
=qv3u
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

jeffkuta@pacbell.net wrote:

> Bravo: Trifle

Still not that good.

> Capitalist: Remove Sabbat restriction

Capialist is already perfectly solid--it is like, more likely to pay off
than Perfectionist is in a Kindred Spirits deck.

> Conniver: Trifle
> Creep Show: Remove Sabbat restriction
> Curmudgeon: Remove tap restriction
> Guru: Remove Sabbat restriction
> Loner: Trifle

All still not that good.

> Perfectionist: "Gold Standard archetype"
> Rebel: Add "older" as another criteria
> Sociopath: Remove Sabbat restriction

Much like capitalist, still pretty good in a lot of decks.

> Traditionalist: Remove "and the referendum fails" restriction.

Again, not that good still.

> Voila! Fixed Archetypes. 😉

I mean, like, all of these certainly help the cards, but as mentioned
before, it is pretty much policy to not upgrade weak cards via errata (with
a few exceptions), as it isn't really worth the effort. They'd have to
reprint them eventually anyway, and rather than reprinting a bunch of
upgraded yet still lame Archetypes, they could just make some new ones that
are up to par with Perfectionist, and issue a few each in the next bunch of
sets.


Peter D Bakija
pdb6@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Derek Ray wrote:

> OMG, who'd have thought -- actually trying something at a MILD level
> first, to see if it's underpowered or just right, before adding stronger
> stuff in later if it IS underpowered.

Hey, it works for me. I don't so much have a problem with the weak Archtypes
(well, except that i have so darn many of them...)


Peter D Bakija
pdb6@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh